[TowerTalk] consensus

[Steve Oksala]

Slightly off subject ... I don't know about the solar cycle, but I do know
that "consensus" means that there is mostly (but not unanimous) agreement.
It says nothing about whether it is right or wrong, only that most of the
people mentioned think it is. So this use is OK. Unfortunately quantum
physics says we can't even rely on a thing being definitely true or not ....

Steve Oksala
NI3P

-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
towertalk-request at contesting.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 12:00 PM
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: TowerTalk Digest, Vol 161, Issue 100

Send TowerTalk mailing list submissions to
	towertalk at contesting.com

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	towertalk-request at contesting.com

You can reach the person managing the list at
	towertalk-owner at contesting.com

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
"Re: Contents of TowerTalk digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Fwd: My question (Ed Sawyer)
   2. Re: Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel Report (Jerry Gardner)
   3. FW:  Fwd: My question (Matt)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 12:19:09 -0400
From: "Ed Sawyer" <sawyered at earthlink.net>
To: <towertalk at contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Fwd: My question
Message-ID: <002601d1b057$d886a0c0$8993e240$@earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

What method are people using to model a tower connected directly to ground
with a yagi on top?  Are you checking the tower physically for resonance and
using an equivalent tuned element in the model or something else?

Ed  N1UR



------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 16:30:24 -0700
From: Jerry Gardner <jerryw6uv at gmail.com>
To: Tower Talk <towertalk at contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel Report
Message-ID:
	<CABi7XyocS2C18s_F-rRANgiJFe5nbm8gp6DYkn6LjDdsbNubGw at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

>On the website 
>http://www.sec.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/PressRelease.html
>they said the following: "The first year after solar minimum, marking 
>the end of Cycle 23, will provide the information scientists need to 
>arrive at
a
>consensus".
>
>
>In science you cannot have a consensus. Something either is or isn't. 
>The statement points to how politics has entered the world of Science 
>whether
it
>be forecasting a solar cycle or global warming.
>
>My forecast for cycle 24 is for it to begin in June 2007 and peak at a 
>smoothed SSN of 105 in 2012. Recently there have been a number of 
>predictions calling for solar cycle 24 to be very large if not the 
>largest since solar cycle 19. Not only do I think that those hyped 
>forecasts are incorrect and have stated so on a number of propagation 
>email reflectors,
my
>forecast for cycle 24 is for it to be weaker than solar cycle 23. As a 
>ham radio operator I hope I'm wrong but we won't know either way for a 
>number
of
>years.
>
>73,
>Thomas F. Giella, KN4LF
>Lakeland, FL, USA
>kn4lf at earthlink.net


I came across this old post from April 2007 in the archives and thought it
might be interesting to compare Thomas' predictions from 9 years ago to what
actually happened.

Thomas predicted cycle 24 would start in June 2007, the actual start was in
January 2008 -- not bad-- off by only 6 months.

He predicted a peak in 2012 -- the dual peaks occurred in 2011 and 2014.

He predicted the peak to reach a smoothed SSN of 105 -- the actual peaks
were 99 for the first peak and 101 for the second. Not bad at all. In fact,
he nearly nailed it.

73,
Jerry


------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 21:40:34 -0500
From: "Matt" <maflukey at gmail.com>
To: <towertalk at contesting.com>
Subject: [TowerTalk] FW:  Fwd: My question
Message-ID: <007601d1b0ae$a7912380$f6b36a80$@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

Hi Ed,

I have used 3 x face width as circumference and modeled using equivalent
round element, then modeled the antennas on top at actual dimensions and
height.   Don't know if that's a valid estimation, but it seems to get into
the ballpark.

Hope this helps.   Good luck on your modeling.

Matt
KM5VI

-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ed
Sawyer
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 11:19 AM
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Fwd: My question

What method are people using to model a tower connected directly to ground
with a yagi on top?  Are you checking the tower physically for resonance and
using an equivalent tuned element in the model or something else?

Ed  N1UR

_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk



------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


------------------------------

End of TowerTalk Digest, Vol 161, Issue 100
*******************************************